Confronting Today's Oil Crisis in the U.S.

With little doubt today the United States is being confronted with a crisis of major proportions. As world oil demand keeps growing and oil supplies are curtailed or threatened by political turmoil in the Mideast, world oil prices could well continue to escalate upwards at an alarming rate. This would portend a major increase in transportation costs with serious economic repercussions throughout the country. The question is what can we do NOW?

"We can no longer lavish ourselves with large gas guzzling vehicles. We need to replace them with fuel efficient cars and trucks such as hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and we must learn to economize on our travel in every way we can."
- Paul Notari, RE Insider

There are several avenues that could relieve the situation in the long term, but few that we can deploy now to meet our immediate needs. For example, when we talk about a "hydrogen" solution, we are really talking about a revolutionary technology whose practical application is likely a decade or more away. When we talk "electric vehicles" (EVs) we are assuming that battery and/or super capacitor technology will advance dramatically in the next few years so that auto batteries can be recharged quickly and the driving range between recharges can be extended appreciably.
Then there is the hope that liquid petroleum can be domestically produced from coal or oil shale. Producing oil economically from this country's enormous coal supply is seriously being explored by several private companies with some support of the federal government, but it is still a long way from grand scale commercialization. Oil production from shale, on the other hand, is still in its early development stage and few breakthroughs are foreseen in the near future. Both of these technologies have problems associated with land use, water use, and ecosystem destruction that have yet to be solved. For these reasons none of these technologies appear to be realistic solutions in the near term.
This leaves mainly biofuels, i.e., ethanol and biodiesel. While wide attention is now being given to these fuels as petroleum substitutes, strong reservations have been expressed by some. One of the leading ethanol critics is Prof. David Pimental of Cornell University. He calculates that more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy achieved. Many have challenged Pimental's conclusions on the basis that his data is badly outdated and that he includes too many irrelevant energy inputs in his calculations. In fact, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) analysis clearly shows, contrary to the Pimental paper, that U.S. farming and ethanol manufacturing practices are energy efficient and are becoming more so each year. It asserts that the energy content of ethanol delivered to the consumer is significantly larger than the total fossil energy inputs required to produce it. As early as 2002 USDA estimated that ethanol facilities produce at least 1.23 BTUs of energy as ethanol for every fossil BTU expended considering all energy inputs including corn transport, ethanol production, and the distribution and transport of the finished ethanol. This is key since the real goal is to measure how much petroleum is used in the process versus how much petroleum is displaced, not how much total energy is expended.
Still many professionals do believe that a major shortcoming of ethanol is its poor EROEI (Energy Returned On Energy Invested). The ratio today using corn as a feedstock for ethanol is only 1(in):1.5(out) at best. Although this is positive, Prof. Charles Hall (State University of New York) points out that, "expecting to run a country totally on liquid fuels of this low EROEI is almost laughable." Another danger, as warned in Jared Diamond's book, "Collapse," is the possible land degradation that would occur if the enormous acreage needed to produce enough substitute fuel to meet our nation's oil demands is devoted to energy crops. Thus we have a dilemma. The only immediate substitute for oil seems to be ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol has it limitations as stated previously.
Biodiesel, which is a biofuel made primarily from waste fats or soybeans, can directly replace diesel oil but it too has EROEI weaknesses similar to ethanol. On the other hand, while not the total answer, biofuels can be a substantial contributor (possibly as much as 20%) to our liquid fuel needs and should not be discounted. To really make ethanol a major contributor, however, we need to quickly change our feedstock component from corn to cellulosic matter; i.e., farm waste and especially grown energy crops such as specialty grasses and short rotation woody biomass. The benefit of this is that we would achieve a much higher EROEI than from corn alone and we could grow many of the energy crops on land that is fallow, underused or unsuitable for food crops. It is worth noting that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Golden, Colorado, has long been engaged in a research program aimed at developing a practical means of converting cellulosic feedstock into ethanol. In fact, a new ethanol plant in Canada that uses only cellulosic waste as its feedstock has now come on line. It was built by the Royal Dutch Shell company in partnership with Iogen of Canada. More such plants are in the planning stage.
But even at best biofuels alone are not the answer. This country consumes about 21 million barrels of petroleum per day, 14 of which are used for transportation. Currently a NET average of about 150,000 barrels/day (54.75 million barrels/year) is being supplied by biofuels (assuming that only 1 gallon of liquid fuel is required to produce 2 gallons of ethanol -- an optimistic assumption at this time). Even if we increased biofuels production thirty-fold, this would supplant little more than 20% of our petroleum needs (less than one-third of our oil imports today). This in itself is a most ambitious goal, to say the least. It would be unreasonable to expect that we could ever produce enough ethanol to match all or even 60% (amount imported) of our liquid fuel consumption. And even if we could, it is questionable whether this would be desirable considering the enormous amount of land area that would be necessary to produce the ethanol feedstock. Therefore, if we are to solve the total problem we must augment an expanded biofuels production initiative with a dramatic reduction in oil consumption, as much as 7 million barrels per day.
In 2005, the 235+ million on-road U.S. car/light truck fleet averaged 20.3 miles per gallon (mpg); down from 22.5 mpg in 1985. Our commercial airlines, trains, freight trucks, and farm machinery consume gasoline and diesel fuel at an enormous rate. And the amount of oil necessary to produce petroleum based products such as plastics and chemicals is increasing each year. To reduce costs, many airlines are already replacing their old stock with more fuel efficient planes. Many truckers are actively seeking ways to reduce travel miles for deliveries and increasing the fuel efficiency of their trucks.
But the lion's share of the burden must fall upon the private owners of cars and light trucks (which include SUVs and minivans). Some inroads have already been made by the introduction of hybrid gasoline-electric autos which boast mpg ratings of more than twice the average mpg rating of all other cars. And it is further encouraging that many hybrid autos are now being modified so that they can be plugged into any electric power source when the vehicle is idle thereby recharging the batteries without using the vehicle's gasoline engine or regenerative braking system. This increases the mpg tremendously and some hybrid auto manufacturers are seriously considering making this feature an option on future models.
Bottom line -- to make a serious reduction in U.S. oil consumption over the next fifteen years we need to increase the average mpg of our car/light truck fleet from 20.3 mpg to 35 mpg (fifteen years is the average time it takes to turn over our entire light-car fleet today). Therefore, the ideal goal would be to phase in new high-efficiency vehicles to replace all low-efficiency vehicles as they are removed from service over the period. To accomplish this, our federal government would have to carry out a massive public relations campaign, along with an innovative financial incentive program, to convince car owners that it is not only in their own best interest, but in the national interest as well, to change their automobile preferences from SUVs, minivans, and light trucks to smaller, more efficient vehicles. Special rebates should be given to car buyers to purchase hybrid cars and, better yet, plug-in hybrid cars once they become commercially available. In addition, the government will have to gradually impose higher and higher fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards for cars, as well as light trucks, on car manufacturers for implementation over the next decade.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the action we must take NOW to relieve our dependence on foreign oil over the next two decades is threefold: First, we need to increase our domestic oil production from the current level of 7.5 million barrels/day to about 10 million barrels/day. This may mean more offshore drilling, possibly some discrete drilling on public lands, and, if it can become economical and environmentally acceptable, production of oil via coal liquefaction and/or extraction from oil shale.
Secondly, we need to produce more and more biofuels, hopefully as much as a NET 4 million barrels/day. This assumes that a practical method of producing ethanol from cellulosic feedstock will be developed within the next five years and that it will be the predominant method of producing ethanol over the following ten years. It also assumes that there will be a major increase in biodiesel production. These measures will not only provide alternative fuels to relieve much of our gasoline and diesel fuel needs but it also will create thousands of new domestic jobs and greatly improve our balance of trade.
Thirdly, and most importantly, we need to drastically reduce our oil consumption by some 7 million barrels/day. This means an upping of CAFE standards by government edict, a mass manufacture and sale of highly fuel-efficient vehicles, and the subsequent changing some of our life style habits. We can no longer lavish ourselves with large gas guzzling vehicles. We need to replace them with fuel efficient cars and trucks such as hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and we must learn to economize on our travel in every way we can (car pools, fewer road trips, shorter commutes, greater use of public transportation). In fact, there is a movement afoot encouraging local governments to pass new zoning laws and create incentives for better urban planning of all new real estate developments to ensure less travel between home, stores and places of employment.
These may appear to be near impossible goals, and maybe they are. But we must strive to achieve them as best we can. If we fall short we will still be far ahead of our current business as usual scenario and will reduce our oil imports appreciably. If we delude ourselves that there is no crisis and do nothing, we will be doomed.
About the author...
Paul Notari is currently the Renewable Fuels and Transportation Division representative on the American Solar Energy Society Board of Directors. In 1980, as head of the Technical Information Branch at the Solar Energy Research Institute (now the National Renewable Energy Laboratory), he was the originator and publisher of Fuel From Farms, one of the first textbooks on ethanol production technology. The publication was widely distributed throughout the nation and is recognized as one of the primary movers in the launching of today's ethanol industry.

33 Comments

Mr. Notari, you were doing really well until you got to "Thirdly..." in your conclusion. That sort of reduction is simply not going to happen. It would result in an unacceptable reduction in GDP, so no administration or Congress would propose it or pass legislation mandating it, and no agency has the power to require it. In addition, previous reductions in CAFE standards have resulted not in reduced gasoline consumption, but in increased commute distances and more sprawl.

Elevated oil prices will result in a move by consumers to more fuel-efficient vehicles, and the future of passenger vehicles in this country probably will include increased use of highly efficient diesel engines of the sort widely used in Europe and Asia.

That said, the force of the market will move consumers in that direction far faster than any government edict or moral suasion or your part ever could.

It's truely wonderful to read the comments of all the people in this group, because I think they are all relevent, i.e. conservation, alternatives, buying local produce, Reduce, Recylce, Reuse, etc.

You all seem so well informed so I think it's worth mentioning that so many people in the country are oblivious to the issues and potential solutions. I really think that EDUCATION is a vital element in this equation. We need to educate the population (current and future) and make them understand that their buying power, habits, voting patterns, etc. can affect change.

One final comment - with big oil buddies having a stranglehold on the Whitehouse little is going to change.

Soon Californians will vote on Proposition #87. Already, Big Oil is mounting a big campaign to stop it. According to the Calif. "Legislative Analyst's Office": "......the measure would impose a severance tax on oil production in California to generate revenues to fund $4 billion in alternative energy programs over time." One of the stated goals of the proposition is "...to reduce the use of petroleum in California by 25 percent from 2005 levels by 2017."
I read a statement today by Cal Chevron's CEO David J. O'Reilly that the $200 million annual tax estimate for Chevron (the largest producer in the state) would ddrastically affect Chevron's profit. Since $200 million is only 5 times what Mr. O'Reilly received in compensation from Chevron last year (according to an April 15, 2006 NYT article), perhaps Chevron could recoup their losses by laying off 5 fat cats at the top of their corporate feeding bin.

It seems to me that what Chevron and the other Oil companies are afraid of is not the tax, which the Legislative Analyst's Office says will have a minimal negative impact on the state economy, (and possibly a much greater positive impact), but the idea that they will be helping to solve the problems involved with our dependence on oil. Historically, their profits have never been so high. The idea that something might actually be done to reduce our dependence on petroleum, and maybe reduce the fat cats' income, understandably disagrees with their world view.

Quoting from a book that I am enjoying today: "There are always good reasons to delay....Money. Political considerations. The promise of better technology next year."

As one of the contributors to this stream said, (more or less), we need to get our governments to force the acts that need to be done. I think that if we wait for the so-called free market place to do what needs to be done to protect us from ourselves, the job may never get done. Too many large entities have a vested interest in the status quo, even if it means their own eventual demise.

Glenn (#28): The job will "get done" when those of us who know it, act. Has waiting for gov't or industry ever led to breakthrough? Ask Bill Gates. If you want it, do it yourself. We can lead the way--they will follow, someday.

Mr. Ken Russo - Wow, I agree with what you have said. And more -
Concentrating on the technical challenges facing our species is maybe the easiest part of the problem. Gtting necessary changes implemented is much more difficult than most think, because the political environment in which we live and breathe is controlled by special interests.
American politicians today are not just tempted by corruption, they actually demand it. Anyone heard of the "K Street Project?"
Another example - the Red Car mass transit system in Southern California was the largest in the world. It was bought up and destroyed by Standard Oil and GM in 1955. Anyone want to hazard a guess why?
During and after WWII, there were thousands of all-electric delivery vehicles in Manhattan. This, at a time without regenerative braking, micro-processors, transistors, or high-tech batteries. It is not technology holding back our salvation, but something else.

for a sustainable solution to enegy crisis we need not forget about energy conservation and energy efficiency. we can continue to generate more even from different sources but as long as we use wastefully we will also continue to spend and pollute more.

at this point where almost everyone is seeing the energy problem, professionals and agencies need enforce more on energy efficiency technologies and promote them widely for their uptake by the community. for instance, by implementing good housekeeping measures to any energy consumer it is possible to achieve energy saving of up to 20% or so. and, there much more energy saving room from employing energy efficiency technologies.

I drive a Jetta diesel and get about 50 mpg. Because I now share a ride with a fellow worker I can count it as 100 mpg. Currently I use 40% biodiesel. It's a start.
Ethanol from corn is quite inefficient there are many alternatives inlcuding my favourite Jersulem artichokes. The biggest energy waste is in the distilation. If the heat used to distill the alcohol was reused the efficiency would be vastly increased.
The energy costs of just in time delivery to industry are also enormous. Just in time requires trucks rather than trains. We need to rethink our lifestyle, it dosn't need radical changes but some compromises and perhaps by paying a hefty amount for overconsumption we would find the alternatives are not to hard to come by.

Just as the Federal Reserve has manipilated interest rates to control our fiscal behaviour we need a similar mandate that will change our energy habits. Make fossil fuels even more expensive and we will find alernatives quickly. Start with a tax of .25/gal to fund new initiatives in sustainable energy infrastructure, public transportation and energy efficiency - and build in significant increases in the tax as an incentive to do more now. We need to build the sustainable society that we should have started on after WWII instead of the suburbia we now have and on which we squandered all that oil.

Whilst I agree with Mr Notaris about oil production, I wish to comment about the solutions. Firstly, Peak Oil is worse than we think. The data I have is that the crunch will come around 2010. Hydrogen vehicles are not 10 years or more away. A number of auto manufacturers have Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road. Hondas FCX which has already undergone its first redevelopment. It has a range of 300 km which covers over 90% of vehicles in use today. It has 80 kW of power and a top speed of around 150 km/h. Hydrogen can be easily produced from renewable sources and stored for later use to produce electricity or fuel vehicles. Compressed air vehicles are now available and are ideal for city driving. They can be "refilled" in minutes at an " air station" or at home. I have studied the Hydrogen Economy for over 25 years, and I am convinced that Hydrogen and compressed air vehicles are a long term practical solution to the demise of oil. WE HAVE TO ACT FAST AND WE HAVE TO ACT NOW !!

I agree with most everything he says except the part about more offshore drilling. We need to focus on using less oil, not drilling for more, which does nothing to address global warming. New investments should not be in oil rigs, but in alternative fuel and energy technologies, and improved engine efficiencies. The use of biofuels from waste material has more promise than Paul admits. Oil can be made from plants like soybeans, switchgrass, sunflower seeds, rape seeds, palm oil and even some types of algae. Changing World Technologies has created a bioreactor that can turn almost any organic material (garbage) into oil. We clearly need to start thinking outside the box to solve the energy and global warming problem. Paul is clearly on the right track.

dursun sakarya is correct. The only reason to produce ethanol is its use as the alcohol for transesterification. The US should replace spark ignition engines with new clean deisels. There is little doubt that substantial quantities of BD can be produced along with sufficient ethanol in a sustainable fashion - read NO,ZERO,NADA fossil inputs. Period! Nobody gets this. For all intents and puposes the general public is alamingly ignorant of energy reality. They don't get that fossil fuels were the exception, not the rule. They don't get the implications of the fact that we have used up the stored solar energy of millions of years in a mere 200years and there is nothing to replace it but today's solar energy and that's what we are going to have to get by with. Peak Oil has arrived, just as predicted, and the Long Emergency has begun.

Here is my idea, at least for my personal gasoline use. I have a 1.25 kW solar electric system on a tracker. On a good day it will generated about 7 kWh. According to the hybrid folks - 1 kWh will propel a Prius about five miles. Seven kWh a day will take me 35 miles. My daily commute is at most ten miles. (Everyone needs to start living closer to where they work, shop and play).

So yes, I would add more solar electric panels. They would perhaps help the utility grid during the day. The grid would then charge my car at night at a lower per kWh rate.

Ideally my car would be a biodiesel fueled plug in hybrid that is more efficient than today's hybrids. Longer trips would use the biodiesel (which has a better energy return than ethanol).

Truck fuel use is more difficult - I foresee a return to the train and commercial markets moving more regional (rather than staying global).

I have recently become much more interested in the state of energy in our country due to petroleum prices and the discord in the Middle East. I am interested in getting much more involved to help our country with this issue. Since I am new to this website, any suggestions from this experienced group on how to get more involved would be appreciated. Please email robertwr11@yahoo.com.

The fastest way to radically reduce petroleum dependence of the US car fleet would be for Ford & GM cer to import their own fuel-efficient models from Europe. We drive a VW Passat station wagon with a European industry standard turbo-diesel engine generating over 130bhp, heavy & safe with comfortable capacity for 5 adults. It gets 60mpg here in a semi rural environment - I kid you not! British Government figures cite 53mpg for this vehicle and related products like the Ford Mondeo series, GM Opel series, etc. The petrol models acheive combined mileages of 35- 40mpg. So why do US automakers continue to fake like their left hand doesnt know what their right hand is doing? They want so badly not to endanger their own muscle-bound dinosaur vehicles in the home market.

I would make sure we also consider using 'Butanol'. It is less corrosive, can be shipped by existing pipelines, has almost the same energy content as gasoline and goes on sale in England in 2007 It is being developed here in the U.S. by Dow Chemical. Its made from sugar beets.

The government is either unwilling or unable to get anything done when it comes to dealing with the auto Industry. Instead lets try something like this. Aa billion dollars when 50% of the vehicles sold are flex-fuel. Five billion when ALL of their vehicles are either flex-fuel and/or bio-desiel qualified. Lets give them 10 billion when they have sold 500,000 hybrids or plug-in electrics. Lets give them 2 billion each year thereafter if they increase the fuel efficiency of their fleet and the number sold. Corporate America loves incentives - they hate mandates.

Thanks everyone for the comments. We all have good ideas to share. Here are mine:

1) Paul's article is OK, but amazingly ignorant of Global Warming. Global Warming will mean economic disaster totally dwarfing that of mere high oil prices. Just ask a professional risk managment consultant working for the insurance companies. Can you say 1/2 of manhattan island underwater?

2) We don't just need a domestic source of energy, we need a democratic energy system. A transportation system based on Ethanol would create the opposite. Ethanol's biggest supporters are those who profit from continued energy oligopoly - including Big Agra and Big Oil, who are not looking out for the public interest.

3) As much as I sympathize with the plight of those of you fine readers marooned in car-dependent land, our country needs to embrace public transit.

The "purist" in me does not want to go out on that limb of increased domestic energy production. But I applaud Mr. Notari's call for greater energy efficiency and reduced consumption.

America must RADICALLY reduce its energy consumption. While this could "most easily" be accomplished through conservation, our best bet for the future is still increased efficiency.

Washington needs to grow a spine and push for much greater CAFE standards. Higher-mileage vehicles are one of many reasons why GM & Ford have been left in the dust.

And while there are calls for a "Manhattan" or "Apollo" project to create a more sustainable energy infrastructure, we'll need something MUCH bigger than that. Those projects only involved a few thousand of our Best & Brightest, while a new energy paradigm will require a serious commitment from every level of government, every business, every individual, and every other conceivable sector of society.

I share Mr. Notari's strategic view. It is interesting to me that reader comments following his article went into divergent solutions to address the crisis and sounded like "sales presentations" for their particular "favorite" solution. My entire career has been and continues to be in sales so I appreciate a good presentation, however; I think these opinions miss the author's main point, WE NEED ALL POSSIBLE solutions to be developed and maximized for commercial viability. There is not a magic bullet but rather a shotgun shell with many many smaller pellets (ethanol, butanol, biodiesel, hybrids, etc.) aiming at the same goal. These presentations reminded me of what would happen if you placed psychologists in a room and asked them how human behavior was formed - they would all think "their discipline" was correct when in reality, part of their discipline would be accurate while part of their counterpart's view would be accurate as well. WE ARE this entire crisis together.

This is too tame - 35 mpg is not enough and there's much else to do. Close blinds, before turning up A/C. Buy locally - my local stores are crammed with imported produce in the middle of our harvest, because importers prefer year-round supply contracts and the long shelf life of produce bred for shipping, rather than flavour/nutrition. And how much STUFF do we need? For many, "shopping" is an addiction; but why not spend in ways that don't harm the environment - better food (not more), local shows, massages, etc? And, what must be shipped, should go by rail; not trucks or air. Then there's there is walking, etc. How many people are really so busy they can't take an extra 5-10 minutes to go down the street?

Best of all, these ideas save money and improve health. To a Martian, this would seem a no-brainer ... but powerful interests are fighting to preserve markets. That's why voters must ensure that politicians feel less risk in defying special interests than defying logic.

I am disappointed Mr. Notari has missed the one solution that can be implemented as a near term solution and that is sustainable. Mass Transit is a sollution that is constantly overlooked in this debate. Except for a handful of cities in the US, this transportation option is underutilized, under funded, and ineffective. Our local, state, and federal government can immediately build upon the meager backbone of the various systems to create a comprehensive network of busses, trains, and shuttles that suit the needs of most urban and suburban communities. Then it is a matter of marketing. America has a stigma about taking public transit. With the right agency and campaign, this too can be overcome. The oil saved can more than offset the amount Mr. Notari figures we need to drill for.

Paul Notari's conclusions are off the mark. Digging our way out of trouble by drilling for more oil and gas is not the answer and will only bring more environmental destruction and add to global warming. Oil shale production is especially polluting and incredibly carbon intensive.

As for 35mpg, why not aim for 100mpg? The technology exists in hybrids. In any case, we need energy efficiency across the spectrum.

I believe the author too quickly dismisses the practicality of electric cars. I have a "Solectria", a 10 year old all electric car that is fueled by my home's electric system, a 6kW solar electric array. Like the EV-1 owners in the film "Who Killed the Electric Car" I love driving an electric car. Yes it goes fast enough to go on the freeway and it holds 4 people. (body is GM Metro) With old fashion lead acid batteries the range is 30 to 35 miles. 1kW solar system runs this car for 3,500 miles. With batteries like those in EV-1 we would have an even better car. At ASES conference they went the next step considering the current state of plug in hybrids. Andrew Frank at UC Davis has his students building these cars and he estimates home owner can pay for a solar array in 4 years if car is fueled via home's electricity. The technology is here, we just need to convince the car manufacturers that this might be the answer out of bankruptcy.

>When we talk "electric vehicles" (EVs) we are >assuming that battery and/or super capacitor >technology will advance dramatically in the >next few years so that auto batteries can be >recharged quickly and the driving range >between recharges can be extended >appreciably.

Assume?

Tesla just sold its first hundred hot Roadster EVs in three weeks! The car does 0-60 mph in four seconds and ranges 250 miles per charge. A more sedate and affordable Tesla sedan is planned.
AltairNano is testing powerful, safe and fast-charging lithium batteries in a full-sized EV this year. Both Subaru and Mitsubishi will sell highway-capable EVs by 2010.
Ten years ago, I rented and drove an original GM EV1 (before it became a dead film star;) it did 0-30 in 3 seconds and ranged 75 miles on lead-acid batteries. The 1998 Gen II EV1 went 125 miles with Nickel metal-hydride batteries.
I assume that I'll be buying a zero-emission, oil-free highway EV in less than five years.

I think Paul writes well and comprehensively. He forsees the sword of oil dependency hanging over us. I think that private drivers will have to purchase more fuel efficient vehicles and that this practice should be supported by favorable legislation. There should be increasingly heavier taxes on fuel inefficient vehicles; we must get these off the road if we expect to meet the oil import difficulties of the future.

Excellent article that shares many of my own conclusions about the urgency of taking immediate steps to reduce consumption and develop "near" technology solutions that will become the new alternative fuel paradigm for the future (biodiesel and cellulosic ethanol). I would direct your readers to stories about conversion technologies that would reduce landfills and pollution while producing ethanol and green electricity - like RENEW L.A. - L.A.'s aggressive, 20-year landfill diversion program.

Yes, very good suggestions. The fastest way to get free of Middle East oil is through Ethanol, especially in US with vast lands to grow crops. See info about Brazil's fabulous use of ethanol and all the vehicles available (http://www.newwavecars.com/ethanol.htm).

Gas stations can add ethanol tanks rapidly. This is the fastest way to get the tide turned.